{"id":"court_ctb_1409_1","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1409,"sub_number":1,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"Exhibit 1 ![](_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg)","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# Exhibit 1\n\n![](_page_1_Picture_2.jpeg)\n\n### **EUGENE FUNG SC** 馮庭碩資深大律師\n\nCall: 1997 (HK); 1997 (England and Wales) Inner Bar: 2012\n\n# **P R O F I L E**\n\nEugene Fung has a litigation and advisory practice, principally in the areas of trusts, wills, probate, tax, land law and professional negligence. He also undertakes general commercial litigation, with particular emphasis on disputes involving breach of fiduciary duty, restitution, agency and civil fraud. For trusts and probate work, he is regularly involved in applications for court directions on behalf of trustees, executors, administrators and committees of the estate. He also has considerable experience in tax litigation acting for the Inland Revenue Department and taxpayers on matters involving profits tax, salaries tax, stamp duty and (the now-abolished) estate duty.\n\n# **C O N T A C T**\n\n| Email: | efung@templechambers.com |\n|--------|--------------------------|\n| Tel:   | (+852) 2523 2003         |\n\n#### **Secretary**\n\n| Name:  | Amanda Li              |\n|--------|------------------------|\n| Email: | ali@templechambers.com |\n| Tel:   | (+852) 2248 1882       |\n\n# **P R A C T I C E A R E A S**\n\n- Equity / Trust\n- Probate / Succession\n- Tax / Revenue\n- Commercial\n- Civil Fraud / Asset Recovery\n- Restitution / Unjust Enrichment\n- Property & Conveyancing\n- Banking / Finance\n- Mental Health\n- Charity\n- Injunction / Contempt\n- Professional Liability\n- Company\n- Insolvency\n\n# **A P P O I N T M E N T S A N D P U B L I C O F F I C E**\n\nRecorder of the Court of First Instance of the High Court (2018 to 2022)\n\n- Deputy High Court Judge (2014, 2015 & 2016)\n- Chairman of the Air Transport Licensing Authority (from 2022)\n- Chairman of the Discipline Committee of the Financial Reporting Council (from 2022)\n- Non-executive director of the Financial Reporting Council (from 2019)\n- Chairman of the Process Review Panel for the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority (from 2019)\n- Chairman of the Process Review Panel for the Insurance Authority (from 2019)\n- Chairman of the Appeal Panel (Travel Industry Ordinance) (from 2022)\n- Chairman of the Banking Review Tribunal (2016 to 2022)\n- Deputy Chairman of the Administrative Appeals Board (2014 to 2020)\n- Member of the Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong (2012 to 2018)\n- Member of the Payment Systems and Stored Value Facilities Appeals Tribunal (2012 to 2019)\n- Member of the Panel on Property Law, Conveyancing and Equity for Barristers Qualification Examination of the Hong Kong Bar Association (from 2005)\n\n# **E D U C A T I O N**\n\n- 1994 MA, University of Cambridge\n- 1995 LLM, University of Cambridge\n\n# **P U B L I C A T I O N S A N D A R T I C L E S**\n\n- Reviewer to the Hong Kong *Civil Procedure 2012, 2013 and 2014* (Sweet & Maxwell)\n- \"The Scope of the Rule *in Shephard v Cartwright*\" (2006) 122 *Law Quarterly Review* 651\n- \"Establishing Estoppel after Recognition of Change of Position\" (2001) *Restitution Law Review* 52 (with Lusina Ho)\n- \"Change of Position and Estoppel\" (2001) 117 *Law Quarterly Review* 16 (with Lusina Ho)\n- Contributing editor to the *Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2001 & 2002* (Sweet & Maxwell)\n- \"Payment In and Out and the Quistclose Trust\" (1998) 28 *Hong Kong Law Journal* 168\n- \"Spies, Traitors and Fiduciaries\" (1998) 19 *The Company Lawyer* 219\n- \"Does Legal Set-Off Exist in Hong Kong?\" (1998) 8 *Amicus Curiae* 31\n- \"Buy-out Order and Shareholders' Agreement\" (1997) 18 *The Company Lawyer* 59\n- \"The Legal Implications of Foreign Listings for PRC Enterprises with Particular Reference to Hong Kong\" (1996) 17 *The Company Lawyer*, Part I at 40; Part II at 73\n\n# **F U R T H E R I N F O R M A T I O N**\n\nInstructed as expert on Hong Kong law:\n\n(1) for a bank on the enforceability of a promissory note governed by Hong Kong law for an action in the High Court of Singapore (subsequently settled)\n\n(2) for a commercial entity on the purpose and effect of the Transfer of Businesses (Protection of Creditors) Ordinance, Cap 49 (accepted by the High Court of Singapore in *Karaha Bodas Co LLC v Pertamina Trading Co Ltd* [2005] 2 SLR 568)\n\nSecretary to Lincoln's Inn Society of Hong Kong (2004 – present)\n\nHonorary Associate Professor at the University of Hong Kong (LLB Equity & Trusts and LLB Restitution in 2000 to 2007)\n\nGuest lecturer at the University of Hong Kong (LLB Equity & Trusts and LLB Restitution in 1998 to 2000)\n\n#### **S E L E C T E D C A S E S**\n\n#### **E QU I TY / TRUST**\n\n- *Lau Koon Ying Matthew v Lau Tark Wing* [2021] 4 HKLRD 535 (CA) (Breach of fiduciary duties whether compound or simple interest on sums found due upon taking of accounts)\n- *Tao Soh Ngun (aka Lo To Li Kwan) v HSBC International Trustee Ltd* [2019] HKCFI 1268 (CFI) (Whether trustee has failed to comply with the wishes of a de-facto settlor of a discretionary trust and has breached its duties as trustee)\n- *Li Shiu To v Cheung Pik Ng et al* [2018] 1 HKLRD 934 (CFI) (Construction of Civil Liability (Contribution) Ordinance in a case involving allegations of dishonest assistance)\n- *HSBC Trustee (Hong Kong) Ltd v Alexander Laufer et al* [2017] 2 HKC 17 (CFI) (Whether trustee should pay foreign tax and how such tax should be borne as between the beneficiaries)\n- *HSBC Institutional Trust Services (Asia) Ltd v Tin Lik et al* [2012] 1 HKLRD 702 (CA) (Administration of trust – trustee seeking approval of court in exercise of fiduciary duty)\n- *Law Shuk Hoi v Law Lok Fung Kenneth et al* [2010] 4 HKLRD 316 (CFI), [2011] 5 HKLRD 23 (CA) (Construction of a letter of wishes – whether trust power or mere power)\n- *Luo Xing Juan Angela v Estate of Hui Shui See et al* (2009) 12 HKCFAR 1 (CFA) (Common intention constructive trust – promissory estoppel)\n- *Ip Man Shan Henry v Ching Hing Construction Ltd* [2003] 1 HKC 256 (CFI) & (CACV 185 & 186 of 2003, 04.02.05) (CA) (Beneficial ownership – whether land should be held on resulting trust or constructive trust)\n\n### **Probate / Succession**\n\n- *Re Estate of Li Sing Kui* [2022] 4 HKC 420 (CFI) (Will whether a disposition in a will found to have infringed the rules against perpetuities is void or is held on a discretionary trust)\n- *Re WSY* [2022] 4 HKC 1 (CFI) (Mental Health making of a statutory will for a mentally incapacitated person (MIP) and setting up of a discretionary trust for the MIP's son)\n- *Stella Maria Da Silva v HSBC Trustee (Hong Kong) Ltd* [2010] 1 HKLRD 340 (CFI) (Will entitlement to remainder interest in deceased's estate - whether class intended to close upon acceleration of subsequent interest - construction of will)\n- Advising and appearing in court for the administrators *pendente lite* in the Estate of the late Nina Wang, including obtaining a *Mareva* injunction to preserve the assets of the Estate: *Chinachem Charitable Foundation Ltd v Chan Chun Chuen* [2012] 1 HKC 587\n\n### **Tax / Revenue**\n\n- *CIR v Koo Ming Kown* [2022] HKCFA 18 (CFA) (Additional tax whether a director is personally assessed for the profits tax of the company under ss 57 and 82A of the Inland Revenue Ordinance) (Appearing as amicus curiae)\n- *China Mobile Hong Kong Co Ltd v CIR* [2020] HKCFI 1649 (CFI) (Profits tax whether spectrum utilisation fees paid are revenue or capital in nature)\n- *Ho Kwok Tai v Collector of Stamp Revenue* [2016] 5 HKLRD 713 (CA) (Stamp duty partial refund of ad valorem duty – proper construction of s 29DF of the Stamp Duty Ordinance)\n- *CIR v Church Body of the Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui* (2016) 19 HKCFAR 54 (CFA) (Profits tax intention to trade – whether \"enhancement for realisation\" principle exists)\n- *Turner Entertainment Networks Asia Inc v CIR* [2015] 3 HKLRD 295 (CA) (Profits tax proper construction of ss 15(1)(a), (b) and (ba) of the Inland Revenue Ordinance)\n- *CIR v Nice Cheer Investment Ltd* (2013) 16 HKCFAR 813 (CFA) (Profits tax proper construction of \"profits\" in s 14 of the Inland Revenue Ordinance - whether unrealised profits are subject to profits tax)\n- *Braitrim (Far East) Ltd v CIR* [2013] 4 HKLRD 329 (CA); (2013) 16 HKCFAR 519 (CFA) (Profits tax proper construction of s 16G of the Inland Revenue Ordinance whether statutory definition of \"lease\" is\n\napplicable)\n\n- *CIR v Li & Fung (Trading) Ltd* (HCIA 3/10, 18.04.11) (CFI); [2012] 3 HKLRD 8 (CA) (Profits tax source of profits)\n- *Tungtex Trading Co Ltd v CIR* [2012] 2 HKLRD 456 (CFI) (Profits tax whether case stated should be remitted back to the Board of Review for amendment)\n- *CIR v CG Lighting Ltd* [2010] 3 HKLRD 110 (CFI), [2011] 2 HKLRD 763 (CA) (Profits tax source of profits - apportionment of tax)\n- *CIR v Datatronic Ltd* (HCIA 3 & 4/07, 13.06.08) (CFI); [2009] 4 HKLRD 675 (CA) (Profits tax source of profits)\n- *CIR v Tai Hing Cotton Mill (Development) Ltd* [2006] 2 HKLRD 325 (CFI); [2007] 2 HKLRD 380 (CA); (2007) 10 HKCFAR 704 (CFA) (Profits tax - whether scheme caught by s 61A)\n- *Lam Soon Trademark Ltd v CIR* [2005] 4 HKLRD 652 (CA); (2006) 9 HKCFAR 391 (CFA) (Profits tax whether the issue of additional assessment was valid)\n- *Arrowtown Assets Ltd v Collector of Stamps* (2003) 6 HKCFAR 517 (CFA) (Stamp duty tax avoidance application of s 45 of Stamp Duty Ordinance and the *Ramsay* principle)\n- *Shiu Wing Ltd v Commissioner of Estate Duty* [1999] 1 HKLRD 367 (CFI); [1999] 3 HKLRD 162 (CA); (2000) 3 HKCFAR 215 (CFA) (Estate duty - tax avoidance - application of *Ramsay* principle)\n\n#### **Commercial**\n\n- *Tin Lik v Deutsche Bank AG et al* (HCCL 17/11, 15.02.16) (CFI); (CACV 145/2016, 23.06.2017) (CA) (Breach of contract - whether a commercial trustee is liable to beneficiary for money retained by the trust - set-off)\n- *De Krassel v Chu et al* [2010] 2 HKLRD 937 (CFI) (Conspiracy to defraud by unlawful means conspiracy to injure - unlawful interference - inducement of breach of contract)\n- *Esquire (Electronics) Ltd v HSBC* [2005] 3 HKLRD 358 (CFI); [2007] 3 HKLRD 439 (CA) (Banking undue influence - economic duress - breach of fiduciary duty)\n\n### **Civil Fraud / Asset Recovery**\n\n- *Pacific Electric Wire & Cable Co Ltd v Hu Hung Chiu et al* (CACV 90-96/2013, 17.09.13) (CA); (2014) 17 HKCFAR 710 (CFA) (Breach of fiduciary duties – whether findings of fact should be overturned on appeal)\n- *Akai Holdings Ltd (in liq) v Kasikornbank PLC* (HCCL 59/04, 26.05.08) (CFI); [2010] 3 HKC 153 (CA); (2010) 13 HKCFAR 479 (CFA) (Authority of director - knowing receipt - dishonest assistance)\n\n### **Property & Conveyancing**\n\n- *Wui Fung Lee Investment Co Ltd v The Incorporated Owners of Hong Kong Mansion* [2021] 1 HKLRD 408 (CA) (Land law – whether a space in a building is part of the common areas)\n- *Uni-creation Investment Ltd v Secretary for Justice* [2017] 2 HKLRD 139 (Land law construction of an offensive trade clause in a Government Lease)\n- *United Bright Ltd v Secretary for Justice* [2015] 2 HKLRD 633 (Land law construction of Conditions of Sale admissibility of extrinsic evidence in private correspondence or minutes in interpretation of document registered in Land Registry)\n\n#### **Professional Liability**\n\n- *Bright Gold Ltd v Mega Well Development Ltd* [2019] 5 HKC 164 (CFI) (Whether solicitors were negligent in representing its clients in a conveyancing transaction in relation to the size of the property)\n- Also representing/advising a number of solicitors to defend professional negligence claims involving mortgage fraud","body_zh":"证据 1\nEugene Fung SC（冯庭硕资深大律师）\n\n取得大律师资格：1997年（香港）；1997年（英格兰及威尔士） 取得资深大律师资格：2012年\n个人简介\n\nEugene Fung（冯庭硕）从事诉讼与法律顾问业务，主要执业领域包括信托、遗嘱、遗嘱认证、税务、土地法和专业过失。他还承办一般商事诉讼，尤其侧重于涉及违反信义义务、返还财产、代理和民事欺诈的争议。在信托和遗嘱认证业务方面，他经常代表受托人、遗嘱执行人、遗产管理人和遗产委员会向法院申请指示。在税务诉讼方面他也拥有丰富经验，曾代表Inland Revenue Department（税务局）及纳税人处理涉及利得税、薪俸税、印花税及（现已废除的）遗产税的案件。\n联系方式\n\n电子邮箱：efung@templechambers.com\n\n电话：(+852) 2523 2003\n秘书\n\n姓名：Amanda Li（李）\n\n电子邮箱：ali@templechambers.com\n电话：(+852) 2248 1882\n执业领域\n\n- 衡平法 / 信托\n- 遗嘱认证 / 继承\n- 税务 / 税收\n- 商事\n- 民事欺诈 / 资产追回\n- 返还财产 / 不当得利\n- 财产与产权转让\n- 银行 / 金融\n- 精神健康\n- 慈善\n- 禁令 / 藐视法庭\n- 专业责任\n- 公司\n- 破产清算\n公职与委任\n\nHigh Court（高等法院）Court of First Instance（原讼法庭）原讼法庭特委法官（2018年至2022年）\n\n- 高等法院暂委法官（2014年、2015年及2016年）\n- 空运牌照局主席（2022年起）\n- 财务汇报局纪律委员会主席（2022年起）\n- 财务汇报局非执行董事（2019年起）\n- 强制性公积金计划管理局程序复检委员会主席（2019年起）\n- 保险业监管局程序复检委员会主席（2019年起）\n- 上诉委员会（旅游业条例）主席（2022年起）\n- 银行复核审裁处主席（2016年至2022年）\n- 行政上诉委员会副主席（2014年至2020年）\n- 香港法律改革委员会委员（2012年至2018年）\n- 支付系统及储值支付工具上诉审裁处成员（2012年至2019年）\n- 香港大律师公会大律师资格考试财产法、产权转让及衡平法专门委员会成员（2005年起）\n教育背景\n\n- 1994年 剑桥大学文学硕士\n- 1995年 剑桥大学法学硕士\n出版物与文章\n\n- 《香港民事诉讼程序》2012年、2013年和2014年审阅人（Sweet & Maxwell）\n- 《“谢泼德诉卡特赖特案”规则的适用范围》（2006）122 Law Quarterly Review 651\n- 《在承认地位改变后确立不容反悔》（2001）Restitution Law Review 52（与Lusina Ho合著）\n- 《地位改变与不容反悔》（2001）117 Law Quarterly Review 16（与Lusina Ho合著）\n- 《香港民事诉讼程序》2001年和2002年特约编辑（Sweet & Maxwell）\n- 《款项存入存出与奎斯特克洛斯信托》（1998）28 Hong Kong Law Journal 168\n- 《间谍、叛徒与受托人》（1998）19 The Company Lawyer 219\n- 《香港是否存在法定抵销？》（1998）8 Amicus Curiae 31\n- 《收购令与股东协议》（1997）18 The Company Lawyer 59\n- 《中国企业境外上市的法律影响——兼论香港》（1996）17 The Company Lawyer，第一部分第40页；第二部分第73页\n其他信息\n\n获指示担任香港法专家证人：\n\n(1) 在High Court of Singapore（新加坡高等法院）的一起诉讼中，代表一家银行就一份受香港法管辖的本票的可执行性提供意见（后达成和解）\n\n(2) 就《业务转让（债权人保障）条例》（第49章）的目的和效力代表一家商业实体提供意见（在Karaha Bodas Co LLC v Pertamina Trading Co Ltd [2005] 2 SLR 568一案中被新加坡高等法院采纳）\n\nLincoln's Inn Society of Hong Kong（香港林肯律政学会）秘书（2004年至今）\n\nUniversity of Hong Kong（香港大学）名誉副教授（2000年至2007年讲授法学士衡平法与信托法、法学士返还法课程）\n\n香港大学客座讲师（1998年至2000年讲授法学士衡平法与信托法、法学士返还法课程）\n精选案例\n衡平法 / 信托\n\n- Lau Koon Ying Matthew v Lau Tark Wing [2021] 4 HKLRD 535 (CA)（违反信义义务——在查账后确定的到期应付金额上适用复利还是单利）\n- Tao Soh Ngun (aka Lo To Li Kwan) v HSBC International Trustee Ltd [2019] HKCFI 1268 (CFI)（受托人是否未能遵从全权信托的事实设立人的意愿并违反了其受托人职责）\n- Li Shiu To v Cheung Pik Ng et al [2018] 1 HKLRD 934 (CFI)（在一宗涉及不诚实协助指控的案件中对《民事责任（分担）条例》的解释）\n- HSBC Trustee (Hong Kong) Ltd v Alexander Laufer et al [2017] 2 HKC 17 (CFI)（受托人是否应缴纳外国税款以及此类税款应如何在各受益人之间分摊）\n- HSBC Institutional Trust Services (Asia) Ltd v Tin Lik et al [2012] 1 HKLRD 702 (CA)（信托管理——受托人就履行信义义务寻求法院批准）\n- Law Shuk Hoi v Law Lok Fung Kenneth et al [2010] 4 HKLRD 316 (CFI), [2011] 5 HKLRD 23 (CA)（意愿书的解释——属于信托权力还是单纯权力）\n- Luo Xing Juan Angela v Estate of Hui Shui See et al (2009) 12 HKCFAR 1 (CFA)（共同意图拟制信托——承诺不容反悔）\n- Ip Man Shan Henry v Ching Hing Construction Ltd [2003] 1 HKC 256 (CFI) & (CACV 185 & 186 of 2003, 04.02.05) (CA)（实益所有权——土地应按归属信托还是拟制信托持有）\n遗嘱认证 / 继承\n\n- Re Estate of Li Sing Kui [2022] 4 HKC 420 (CFI)（遗嘱——遗嘱中被认定违反反永久所有权规则的处分条款是无效还是按全权信托持有）\n- Re WSY [2022] 4 HKC 1 (CFI)（精神健康——为精神上无行为能力人士（MIP）订立法定遗嘱并为该人士的儿子设立全权信托）\n- Stella Maria Da Silva v HSBC Trustee (Hong Kong) Ltd [2010] 1 HKLRD 340 (CFI)（遗嘱——对死者遗产中剩余权益的权利——受益人群体是否意图在后续权益提前生效时确定封闭——遗嘱的解释）\n- 在已故Nina Wang（龚如心）的遗产案中，为诉讼期间遗产管理人提供法律咨询并出庭，包括申请获得马雷瓦禁令以保全遗产资产：Chinachem Charitable Foundation Ltd v Chan Chun Chuen [2012] 1 HKC 587\n税务 / 税收\n\n- CIR v Koo Ming Kown [2022] HKCFA 18 (CFA)（补加税款——根据《税务条例》第57条和第82A条，董事个人是否应对公司的利得税承担评税责任）（作为法院之友出庭）\n- China Mobile Hong Kong Co Ltd v CIR [2020] HKCFI 1649 (CFI)（利得税——已支付的频谱使用费属于收益性质还是资本性质）\n- Ho Kwok Tai v Collector of Stamp Revenue [2016] 5 HKLRD 713 (CA)（印花税——从价印花税的部分退还——对《印花税条例》第29DF条的正确解释）\n- CIR v Church Body of the Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui (2016) 19 HKCFAR 54 (CFA)（利得税——交易意图——是否存在“为变现而进行增值”原则）\n- Turner Entertainment Networks Asia Inc v CIR [2015] 3 HKLRD 295 (CA)（利得税——对《税务条例》第15(1)(a)、(b)及(ba)条的正确解释）\n- CIR v Nice Cheer Investment Ltd (2013) 16 HKCFAR 813 (CFA)（利得税——对《税务条例》第14条中“利润”的正确解释——未实现利润是否应缴纳利得税）\n- Braitrim (Far East) Ltd v CIR [2013] 4 HKLRD 329 (CA); (2013) 16 HKCFAR 519 (CFA)（利得税——对《税务条例》第16G条的正确解释——“租赁”的法定定义是否适用）\n\n- CIR v Li & Fung (Trading) Ltd (HCIA 3/10, 18.04.11) (CFI); [2012] 3 HKLRD 8 (CA)（利得税——利润来源）\n- Tungtex Trading Co Ltd v CIR [2012] 2 HKLRD 456 (CFI)（利得税——案情摘要是否应发回税务上诉委员会进行修改）\n- CIR v CG Lighting Ltd [2010] 3 HKLRD 110 (CFI), [2011] 2 HKLRD 763 (CA)（利得税——利润来源——税款分摊）\n- CIR v Datatronic Ltd (HCIA 3 & 4/07, 13.06.08) (CFI); [2009] 4 HKLRD 675 (CA)（利得税——利润来源）\n- CIR v Tai Hing Cotton Mill (Development) Ltd [2006] 2 HKLRD 325 (CFI); [2007] 2 HKLRD 380 (CA); (2007) 10 HKCFAR 704 (CFA)（利得税——相关安排是否受第61A条规管）\n- Lam Soon Trademark Ltd v CIR [2005] 4 HKLRD 652 (CA); (2006) 9 HKCFAR 391 (CFA)（利得税——补加评税的发出是否有效）\n- Arrowtown Assets Ltd v Collector of Stamps (2003) 6 HKCFAR 517 (CFA)（印花税——避税——《印花税条例》第45条及拉姆齐原则的适用）\n- Shiu Wing Ltd v Commissioner of Estate Duty [1999] 1 HKLRD 367 (CFI); [1999] 3 HKLRD 162 (CA); (2000) 3 HKCFAR 215 (CFA)（遗产税——避税——拉姆齐原则的适用）\n商事\n\n- Tin Lik v Deutsche Bank AG et al (HCCL 17/11, 15.02.16) (CFI); (CACV 145/2016, 23.06.2017) (CA)（违约——商业受托人是否对信托保留的款项向受益人承担责任——抵销）\n- De Krassel v Chu et al [2010] 2 HKLRD 937 (CFI)（通过非法手段串谋欺诈——串谋损害——非法干预——诱导违约）\n- Esquire (Electronics) Ltd v HSBC [2005] 3 HKLRD 358 (CFI); [2007] 3 HKLRD 439 (CA)（银行——不正当影响——经济胁迫——违反信义义务）\n民事欺诈 / 资产追回\n\n- Pacific Electric Wire & Cable Co Ltd v Hu Hung Chiu et al (CACV 90-96/2013, 17.09.13) (CA); (2014) 17 HKCFAR 710 (CFA)（违反信义义务——事实认定在上诉中是否应予推翻）\n- Akai Holdings Ltd (in liq) v Kasikornbank PLC (HCCL 59/04, 26.05.08) (CFI); [2010] 3 HKC 153 (CA); (2010) 13 HKCFAR 479 (CFA)（董事职权——知情受让——不诚实协助）\n财产与产权转让\n\n- Wui Fung Lee Investment Co Ltd v The Incorporated Owners of Hong Kong Mansion [2021] 1 HKLRD 408 (CA)（土地法——大厦内某一空间是否属于公用部分）\n- Uni-creation Investment Ltd v Secretary for Justice [2017] 2 HKLRD 139（土地法——政府租契中妨害性行业条款的解释）\n- United Bright Ltd v Secretary for Justice [2015] 2 HKLRD 633（土地法——卖地条件的解释——在解释土地注册处登记的文件时私人信件或会议记录等外部证据的可采性）\n专业责任\n\n- Bright Gold Ltd v Mega Well Development Ltd [2019] 5 HKC 164 (CFI)（事务律师在产权转让交易中代表客户时就物业面积问题是否存在疏忽过失）\n- 亦代表多名事务律师就涉及按揭欺诈的专业过失索赔进行抗辩/提供法律咨询","key_entities":["Kwok","Je","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":1985,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 12:59:42"}